Lidia Martinez v. Navy Army Community Credit Union ( 2020 )

NUMBER 13-19-00645-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
LIDIA MARTINEZ, Appellant,
v.
NAVY ARMY COMMUNITY CREDIT UNION, Appellee.
____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the 319th District Court
of Nueces County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Perkes
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras
Appellant, Lidia Martinez, attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment entered
by the 319th District Court of Nueces County, Texas, in cause number 2019DCV-3270-
G. Judgment in this cause was signed on August 28, 2019. A motion for new trial was
filed on September 30, 2019. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1,
appellant’s notice of appeal was due on November 26, 2019, but was not filed until
December 10, 2019.
A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in
good faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by rule 26.1, but within the
fifteen-day grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time.
See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617-18, 619 (1997) (construing the predecessor
to Rule 26). However, appellant must provide a reasonable explanation for the late filing:
it is not enough to simply file a notice of appeal. Id.; Woodard v. Higgins, 140 S.W.3d
462, 462 (Tex. App.Amarillo 2004, no pet.); In re B.G., 104 S.W.3d 565, 567 (Tex.
App.Waco 2002, no pet.).
On December 10, 2019, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant of this defect so
that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. Appellant was advised
that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this Court’s
letter, the appeal would be dismissed. To date, no response has been received from
appellant providing a reasonable explanation for the late filing of the notice of appeal.
The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant’s failure to
correct the defect of which she was notified, is of the opinion that the appeal should be
dismissed. See id. 42.3(b),(c). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for want of
jurisdiction.
DORI CONTRERAS
Chief Justice
Delivered and filed the 16th
day of January, 2020.
2